1. Field of the Invention
Over the years there has been an increasing recognition that dental patients of all ages, and particularly children who have not yet gotten their permanent teeth, pose substantially unique problems in the reconstruction of damaged anterior teeth. It is worthy of note that the American Dental Association recognizes pediatric dentistry as a specialty.
With respect to pre teen patients, primary teeth will inevitably be lost as permanent teeth push through, and it was once common to ignore decay and damage to such teeth. However, it has been recognized that care of one's teeth from very early stages of development compliments the growth and stability of permanent teeth. Since at least some baby teeth remain up to age 12, damage to such teeth has a deleterious effect both on the health of the child and the child's appearance.
While dental cavities are an ongoing problem, notwithstanding the advent of such ameliorating measures as fluoride, it is a rare person, including a pre teen, who does not fall or bump into something during the course of their existence, or otherwise in life's experiences has an accident which results in a damaged tooth, whether it be a crack in the enamel, a chip, or some other typical visually unpleasant damage, the repair of which becomes essential to health as well as self esteem.
Clearly health of the patient is a paramount consideration, but whether an adult, or a child in its formative years, self esteem, as a function of physical appearance, can not be discounted or overlooked. Whereas an adult will often opt for a more expensive restoration, primarily because of appearance, it is not uncommon for dentists to use the effective, but unattractive stainless steel restorations. There is increasing recognition, however, that appearance as a function of self esteem is important regardless of age.
As a consequence, there has been an increase in ongoing research relative to means of ameliorating the distractions that damage to an anterior tooth can present to a person. It is to the alleviation of this problem that the present invention is dedicated.
2. Overview of the Prior Art
The standard solution to the problem of a cracked, chipped or even broken anterior tooth has been to fit the damaged tooth with a stainless steel crown. In some cases, where the damage warranted more severe action, the tooth was actually extracted. Since teeth in younger patients are temporary in the sense that they will be lost in favor of a permanent tooth, the most economical approach suggests a minimum effort.
While a smile that flashes the gleam of metal, gold or steel, may, in some circles be a badge of distinction, for most patients, including children, it is at least disconcerting and when such gleam comes from an anterior tooth, it is more likely a distasteful and embarrassing distraction in one's appearance which can inhibit a smile, and detract from one's mood and, indeed, entire persona. It is important, therefore, that the dentist have available to him or her, an alternative that permits the patient to retain, if not heighten, his or her level of self esteem.
There have been some that have addressed the problem, among them, Wiedenfeld, who, in his U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,261 suggested a veneer constructed of a composite resin. The resin is, hopefully, adhered to a stainless steel crown, which is etched to provide a surface that will receive and hold the resin.
Another approach to the problem is found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,538,429 to Mayclin who, with apparent focus on costs, suggests much the same approach as Wiedenfeld, i.e., cementing an overlay over a steel crown. Mayclin deviates from Wiedenfeld in that the overlay is provided with openings to permit the thickness of the completed crown to be thickened to enhance durability.
The patent to Zelesnick, U.S. Pat. No. 2,031,996, is a 1936 offering that teaches the cutting of a window in the face of a steel crown. The essence of Zelesnick is the provision of two or more anchors 11 which are intended to be imbedded in a porcelain layer that fits in the window with its edges between the cap and the tooth being restored. In this manner, a white porcelain layer is fashioned in a steel crown, presumably to reduce the amount of metal that will be seen by others as the person wearing such a restoration talks or smiles. It will be evident to even the casual observer, however, that a crown is present, and at least some metal will be apparent.
Of less significance in the environment of the present invention, yet part of the overall picture of the art, are those patents which provide a framework within which bonding materials may work to adhere a non metallic cap to a metallic base.
Included in this art is the patent to Rieger, U.S. Pat. No. 4,846,718, which suggests a carrier cap, 12. Fung, in his U.S. Pat. No. 5,314,335 employs a wire mesh member 3, and Eldred U.S. Pat. No. 5,118, 296 teaches a chemical composition which he refers to as his cohesion layer.
Finally, Burgess et al., in their U.S. Pat. No. 4,668,193, provides holes 4, as contrasted perhaps to the window of Zelesnick, to permit the securing of a veneer. Burgess et al., however, is relevant only to posterior teeth, where appearance is less relevant and strength is vital.
As will become apparent from a reading of the forthcoming detailed description, none of these prior art efforts suggest the novel approach of the present invention.